Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy'

• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I don’t think it’s even a hot take

  source

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s a hot take, but it’s also objectively the correct opinion

    source

    • OpenStars@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Unfortunately, the former is rather what should be the case, although so many times it is not:-(.

      source
  • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yeah, this is a hot take: I think it’s totally fine if researchers who have done their studies and collected their data want to use AI as a language tool to bolster their paper. Some researchers legitimately have a hard time communicating, or English is a second language, and would benefit from a pass through AI enhancement, or as a translation tool if they’re more comfortable writing in their native language. However, I am not in favor of submitting it without review of every single word, or using it to synthesize new concepts / farm citations. That’s not research because anybody can do it.

    source

    • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It is also a somehow hot take because it kinda puts the burden of systemic misconfiguration on individuals shoulders (oh hey we’ve seen this before, after and all the time, hashtag (neo)liberalism).

      I agree people who did that fucked up. But having your existence as an academic, your job, maybe the only thing you’re good at rely on publishing a ton of papers no matter what should be taken into account.

      This is a huge problem for science not just since LLM’s.

      source

      • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yeah, when you build the hoops you must jump through to maintain your livelihood to be based on a publication machine is it any surprise people gameify it and exploit what they can

        source
• Pregnenolone@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I have an actual hot take: the ability to communicate productive science shouldn’t be limited by the ability to write.

  source

  • pupbiru@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    if you’re contribution is a paper that you don’t even proof read to ensure it makes any sense at all then your contribution isn’t “productive science”; it’s a waste of everyone’s time

    source

    • moakley@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      *your

      source

      • pupbiru@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        well at least you know my comment wasn’t written by AI 😞

        source
      • LyingCake@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Gottem

        source
• Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Even hotter take:

  You should be abke to sue these peer-reviewed journals that let this kind of errors slip through. And they should lose the ability to call themselves “peer-reviewed”.

  source
• jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  There are people in academia now that just publish bullshit incomprehensible papers that may be wrong just to justify continuing funding and not rock the boat. It keeps them employed and paid. I belive this person discussed being scolded by another researcher for questioning this

  source

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I knew who this was going to be before I even clicked, and I highly suggest you ignore her. She speaks well outside of fields she has any knowledge about and is constantly spreading FUD about academia because it drives clicks.

    source